PTAB

IPR2014-01531

Amazon.com Inc v. Personalized Media Communications LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of Controlling a Receiver Station
  • Brief Description: The ’791 patent relates to a method for generating and communicating a product order from a user’s device. A receiver station receives a first computer program from a transmitter to generate an order by processing locally stored user information, and then receives a second computer program from the transmitter to communicate that order to a remote station.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cookbook Guide in view of Telesoftware References - Claims 18-20 are obvious over the Cookbook Guide alone or in combination with one or more of Sedman, Champness, and the NABU Guide.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cookbook Guide (a 1984 user’s guide), Sedman (a 1980 publication), Champness (a 1981 publication), and NABU Guide (a 1982 user’s guide).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Cookbook Guide, a user manual for the "Micro Cookbook" software, disclosed nearly all limitations of claim 18. The software used a first program to generate a shopping list (the order) based on user-modified recipes and stored user data (e.g., serving size). It then used a second program (e.g., a word processor) to communicate the generated shopping list over a phone line to a remote station. The only element not explicitly taught was receiving these programs from a remote transmitter, as the software was distributed on a physical diskette.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that Sedman, Champness, and the NABU Guide all taught the well-known concept of "telesoftware"—distributing software programs to user terminals over telephone or cable television lines. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the Cookbook Guide's functionality with the telesoftware delivery method to gain known benefits, such as avoiding the significant cost and logistical challenges of distributing physical media and enabling efficient, instantaneous software updates (e.g., adding new recipes).
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a conventional software distribution method (telesoftware) to a known type of application software (Cookbook Guide). A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this predictable integration.

Ground 2: Anticipation/Obviousness over Lockwood - Claims 18-20 are anticipated by Lockwood, or are obvious over Lockwood in view of Sedman, Finlayson, Mapp, and/or Kurland.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lockwood (Patent 4,359,631), Sedman (a 1980 publication), Finlayson (a 1984 RFC), Mapp (a 1981 journal article), and Kurland (Patent 4,547,851).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lockwood, which disclosed a self-service terminal for making airline reservations, anticipated or rendered obvious all limitations of the challenged claims. The Lockwood terminal stored user information (e.g., passenger number, smoking preference), used a first "reservations program" to generate an order for a ticket, and used a second "flight ticket delivery program" to communicate the order to a remote credit center for payment processing. Lockwood expressly taught that its programs could be remotely updated, which Petitioner argued made it obvious that the programs could also be received remotely for initial installation.
    • Motivation to Combine: To the extent that initial remote loading was not considered inherent in Lockwood, Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Lockwood’s terminal with the telesoftware teachings of the secondary references. The motivations included providing additional and updated capabilities (a stated goal of Lockwood), improving efficiency by eliminating manual software installation at numerous public terminals, and reducing costs by centralizing software distribution, all of which were known benefits of remote software loading.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing remote software loading on the Lockwood terminal, as the terminal was already equipped with a communication link for remote data updates.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Viewtron - Claims 18-20 are obvious over the Viewtron Handbook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Viewtron Handbook (a 1983 publication), Viewtron Brochure (a 1983 brochure), and The Telidon Book (a 1981 book).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Viewtron system, an early viewdata-based online shopping service, rendered the claims obvious. The Viewtron Handbook described a process where a user’s terminal (receiver station) stored user ID information and received a first "page" (first program) from the Viewtron database (transmitter station). The user interacted with this page to select items and generate an order. The terminal then received a subsequent page (second program) for payment and shipping details, and upon final user confirmation, the terminal executed this program to communicate the complete order to a remote station (the Viewtron computer, merchant, or bank). This multi-stage checkout process was alleged to map directly to the steps of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: This ground was primarily presented as an obviousness argument based on a single, integrated prior art system. The additional Viewtron-related references were cited not for combination with a disparate system, but to confirm that features like the local, temporary storage of received pages were inherent or at least well-known aspects of such viewdata systems. The motivation was simply to use the Viewtron system as it was designed and described.
    • Expectation of Success: As this argument relies on the known operation of a single, commercially available system, the expectation of success was inherent in the system's documented functionality.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 18-20 of the ’791 patent as unpatentable.